This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[myrkul]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

[1714678420]

1714678420

[1714678420]

1714678420

[1714678420]

1714678420

[1714678420]

1714678420

[Mike Christ]

snip

Lol that wasn't directed at you   I already know I can't get through to you.

[kokjo]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

thread of force is also force.

[myrkul]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

threat of force is also force.

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

[kokjo]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

threat of force is also force.

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes.
if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no.

[myrkul]

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

threat of force is also force.

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes.
if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no.

I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow others to hurt me. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to hurt me.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

[kokjo]

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes.
if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no.

I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow people to be hurt. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to be hurt.

yup, you are fucked and trapped in a dilemma.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

[myrkul]

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes.
if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no.

I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow people to be hurt. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to be hurt.

yup, you are fucked and trapped in a dilemma.

Not at all, as I explain.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

[kokjo]

So then the only moral position is absolute pacifism, and not even defense is allowed?

if you find it immoral to hurt people, then yes.
if you do not find it immoral to hurt people, then no.

I see. Well, I do find it immoral to hurt people, and I also find it immoral to allow people to be hurt. So therefore, pacifism is also immoral for me, because by not resisting, I am allowing someone to be hurt.

yup, you are fucked and trapped in a dilemma.

Not at all, as I explain.

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

[myrkul]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

[kokjo]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

Congratulation, you have just created a war.

[myrkul]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding.

I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

Congratulation, you have just created a war.

I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict.

[kokjo]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding.

I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle.

I have not misunderstood the NAP.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

Congratulation, you have just created a war.

I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict.

I find that your replies evades a meaningful response to my exaggerated post.

[myrkul]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding.

I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle.

I have not misunderstood the NAP.

If you believe it makes a person a pacifist, you have.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

Congratulation, you have just created a war.

I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict.

I find that your replies evades a meaningful response to my exaggerated post.

I find that your exaggerated post evades a meaningful response to my reasonable post.

[kokjo]

premise a) you are a pacifist, it is immoral for you to hurt people.
premise b) you also find it immoral for people to be hurt.
-> dilemma, you are fucked, and your head will explode because you don't know what to do.

Well there's your problem. I'm not a pacifist. The non-aggression principle states that it is immoral to initiate force. Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

your post was written under the assumption that you were pacifist, or im bad at reading, and this is a misunderstanding.

I'm willing to wager it's the latter. I've never claimed to be a pacifist. Perhaps you misunderstand the non-aggression principle.

I have not misunderstood the NAP.

If you believe it makes a person a pacifist, you have.

NAP != pacifism, i know that. but pacifism is consistent.

However, someone who attempts to hurt another has, by their actions, shown that they do not find it immoral to hurt people, and so by hurting him to prevent him from hurting me, I am acting within both his morals, and mine.

so you find it immoral to hurt people but still does so?

Only those who think it is moral to hurt others. And since acting in accordance with their morals allows me to act in accordance with my own (it is immoral for others to hurt me), I consider this to be a completely moral action, from both perspectives.

So its okay for you i hurt someone that feels hurt over your proclamation of NAP?

Well, presumably if they "feel hurt" because I told them that initiating force is immoral, they feel that initiating force is moral. If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

Congratulation, you have just created a war.

I'm guessing you've misunderstood something here, as well. War is a conflict between two countries, usually over resources. You described an interpersonal conflict.

I find that your replies evades a meaningful response to my exaggerated post.

I find that your exaggerated post evades a meaningful response to my reasonable post.

Congratulation, you have just started a fist fight.

better?

[myrkul]

NAP != pacifism, i know that. but pacifism is consistent.

As is the non-aggression principle. If you think it is inconsistent, you have misunderstood it.

Congratulation, you have just started a fist fight.

Less exaggerated, but no better. Read what I wrote again:

If they were to try to start anything, I would be perfectly OK ending it.

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

[kokjo]

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first...

[myrkul]

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first...

On the contrary, I did nothing to him.

[kokjo]

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first...

On the contrary, I did nothing to him.

Yes you did. You hurt him by declaring NAP, can't you remember? word can hurt too. 

[myrkul]

He started the fist fight. I ended it.

it is correct that he hit you first, but also that you hurt him first...

On the contrary, I did nothing to him.

Yes you did. You hurt him by declaring NAP, can't you remember? word can hurt too. 

I still contend that you grossly misunderstand Non-aggression.